Ignoring Ethnic Hatred, Disregarding Church Authority, and the Future of Christendom

“Somebody, after all, had to make a start. What we wrote and said is also believed by many others. They just don’t dare express themselves as we did. Stand up for what you believe in even if you are standing alone. How can we expect fate to let a righteous cause prevail when there is hardly anyone who will give himself up undividedly to a righteous cause?”
– Sophie Scholl on her fight against Nazism. Beheaded at the age of 21 by Hitler’s Nazis.

In one week the Mid-Atlantic Reformation Society (MARS) will be hosting their annual Future of Christendom Conference. Regrettably, I cannot have anything to do with this conference or their society. Not because of my preferences, personal judgments, or so on, but because of what God’s Word tells us about having nothing to do with evil men, bad company corrupting, and because I’m called to defend the name of Christ and His Church.

This year the MARS conference has invited Peter Hammond to speak and teach on “Providential Christian History: A Look at Modern Textbooks.” According to Peter Hammond’s own website, he is a minister in Africa and,

“The Founder and Director of Frontline Fellowship, Dr. Peter Hammond, has personally carried out over 100 missions in the war zones and presented over 12,000 sermons, Bible studies and lectures in 33 countries. In the course of their missionary activities some Frontline missionaries have been ambushed, come under artillery bombardment and mortar fire, been stabbed, shot at, beaten by mobs, arrested and imprisoned.”

This “action hero” of Christian ministry is also a teacher of racist ideologies, a kinist, Holocaust-denier, liar, adulterer, and a lawfully excommunicated man. And that is why I will not and cannot support the Future of Christendom Conference.

Kinism and Interracial Marriage

First, Peter Hammond is a kinist and holds to a number of racist views. Kinism, admittedly, is a slippery term, so refer to this article to understand fully what I mean. In short, kinism is the belief that God specially ordained “races” and that He intends for us to preserve that division to one degree or another. Kinism believes that God ethically and specially ordained the nations and “races”. In short, kinism is a doctrinal conviction of anti-miscegenation. All positions commonly held by kinists flow from this critical kinist doctrine. Much more has been written on kinism elsewhere, especially here, here, and here. It should also be noted that Hammond, according to multiple witnesses, does not only hold to kinist ideology but identifies himself as a kinist. A core doctrine of all kinists is their strict stance against interracial (not merely intercultural) marriage. Dr. Joel McDurmon has done an excellent job highlighting the racist ideology of Peter Hammond and his views against interracial marriage. As an example of Hammond’s odious theology, from an articleauthored by Hammond on interracial marriage (Note that many have had problems correctly viewing this article on mobile devices.)

“However, to marry across the colour line would be to me to betray my parents and all of our ancestors, and my children and future generations. Most importantly I believe it would be a betrayal to Almighty God, who has set the boundaries between nations.”

One failed defense of Hammond has been that although his views may be mildly disagreeable, they are private. This is patently false according to Hammond’s own admission. In the very same article condemning marriage between those with different ethnicities, Hammond also claims to have discussed “this matter with numerous pastors, theologians and authors throughout South Africa, in Europe and in America.” Not only is Peter Hammond a false teacher, but he is also internationally a false teacher.

Hammond’s response to McDurmon’s article on his interracial marriage views was very much lacking. In his typical style, Hammond plays the victim and claims that he is being targeted because of his great integrity and achievements. As Dr. McDurmon points out in his follow-up, what is missing from Hammond’s response is a refutation of the arguments made. Hammond defends himself earnestly while not addressing his own words. Many faithful men and women have warned the Theonomist and Christian Reconstructionist Movement about the rotten roots of kinism. To be very clear, the Doctrine of Kinism itself is blasphemous. However, it also lays the foundation for more radical beliefs. This has been the contention of many within our community, while sadly others, such as Joel Saint of the MARS, have consistently minimized and shrugged off kinism.

Neo-Nazism

As we have already seen, Peter Hammond is bad company of the corrupting sort, but what kind of company does Peter Hammond keep? This may seem almost bombastic and overly dramatic, but on May 30th, 2017, Peter Hammond made an appearance on a Neo-Nazi podcast. It almost seems too sensational to be true, but it is true. Browse this Neo-Nazi site at your own risk.

Peter Hammond was not there to debate the Hitler-adoring host or rebuke the potent racism, but rather to chit-chat about how the Nazis were champions of virtue and have been maligned by history. Not only is Peter Hammond a guest on this blatantly Nazi supporting podcast, but he is also a repeat guest and friend of the show. In this more recent episode, Peter Hammond expounds his support for Nationalism while speaking to his National Socialist friend.I am well aware that “Nazi” is a favorite invective of the progressive left, but that should not blind us to the reality of real neo-Nazis, White Supremacists, and the like. The curators of this particular neo-Nazi podcast, just for a bizarre example of their very real Nazism, unironically wish Adolf Hitler birthday with a creepy video along with an accompanying statement on Hitler.

“he told the truth and he really tried to save not only Germany, but Europe and the whole WHITE RACE!! Heil Hitler!”

Host: “White people want strong leaders, and they want leaders that do what they say they are going to do.”Hammond: “Yeah.”Host: “From what I can see, the only guy that we’ve had in the last hundred years who’s done that has been Adolph Hitler.”Hammond: “That is why he is the most hated . . . oh . . . he’s the second-most hated person in the world. The person that the Jews hate the most is Jesus Christ. I mean, he gets blasphemed in how many Hollywood films morning, noon, and night. But Adolph Hitler has got to be the second-most hated person in all of history—by the Jews, that is—because their media puts so much effort into fighting Adolph Hitler, and depicting him in a real caricature without any regard to his real accomplishments.”

Do not miss the pro-Hitler rhetoric from Hammond. In an unbelievable twisting of the truth, Hammond even compares Hitler with our Lord (a Jewish man). And Hammond continues in his tirades against Jews. Notice that he is not only speaking religiously and culturally but also ethnically. The “good” cultural is not just Western Culture or Christian Culture; it is the White Culture.

“These people who crucified Christ, let’s face it, and have been the biggest persecutors of Christian through the ages, are also the biggest promotors of pornography and of the homosexual lesbian agenda and of the New World Order. And you think, why? . . . They say, ‘We hate Christ. We hate the Church. We hate Christians. We think that, you know . . .’ They’ll particularly say, you know, ‘Your Nordic, Anglo-Saxon bitches, we want to. . . .’ and they use all their swear words because what they want is the want to defile the Western Christian culture and they want it all to become debased. And you can see this even in what is written in the Talmud, and many Jewish publications about Jesus. They use words like this: he is the bastard son of that whore Mary, and worse, I mean, I’m not even going to quote all of it. That’s the mentality: they hate Christ. They hate Christians. They hate the white western people. And so the amount of white, western Christians who are falling over themselves to try and make friends with the Jews, they kind of missed the fact that it doesn’t matter what you do, until you commit suicide, they are not going to be satisfied. They want you to fall off the face. . . . and then, they don’t just want you dead, they want you in hell. They talk about Jesus being burned in boiling excrement in hell forever. And that’s what they want to see. That’s their picture of Christ. They want to see him burning in boiling excrement in hell forever. And that’s what they want of us. They don’t just want to damn your country, your heritage, your history, defile you. They want to damn you for eternity. That’s how intense the hatred is of these enemies of western Christian civilization.”

Here Hammond denies that the Nazis committed any atrocities. His reasoning? Identity politics. Liberals from Hollywood believe in the Holocaust, so apparently, the Holocaust must be a fabrication of the leftist Jews.

“My father and a whole lot of honorable people I know and many nations have said that Germans didn’t commit atrocities. Hmm, do I believe them, or do I believe some cocaine sniffing drug addict pervert from Hollywood’s version?”“The genocide of the Boers was replicated later. What they [the bankers] tried out with the Boers they perfected with the Germans. You talk about something in the region of 18,000,000 Germans who died in the second world war, or immediately after at the hands of the allies, either by bombing, or by starvation or massacre. That’s the real genocide, what was done against the Germans. And to cover it up they’ve [the bankers] tried to make it out that the Germans are guilty of genocide, it was actually the Germans who were the victims of genocide [in the second world war].”

Note here that Hammond has elsewhere claimed to have “fought” apartheid. Here he justifies apartheid. His reasoning? The Communists were bad, so apartheid is justified. In other words, pragmatics justifying injustice. The other guy is worse so we can do evil for good to come.

“Just like you don’t understand apartheid: at least you understand the Cold War context, and the communist superpower involvement, and all the wars going on on the borders, and all the communist missiles and war ships in Mozambique and Angola, and the MIGs across the border. Until you understand the Soviet encirclement around South Africa—we had their war ships, their submarines going around the cape—that’s the context. Apartheid didn’t happen in a vacuum. We were fighting for our lives against international communism during a real Cold War and millions of people were dying the in Cold War. . . . Well, the context for Germany and Japan was the same.”

Note here that when Hammond rants against the welfare statism (something truly wicked) his complaints are directly ethnically. It is the fault of the blacks and Asians.

“You can see the birth rate of Europe has plummeted because the promotion of everything that the Jews are involved in, like pornography, prostitution, immorality, homosexuality, the whole deal, all the sterilizations, abortions, and so on. . . .”

“The family is under so much pressure from taxes that you’ve got to have the mother going out for work. And of course, that’s for the whites. But the blacks and the Asians—they don’t need to pay taxes. In fact, they get benefits and welfare. So, you get an economic incentive to move the west, and to undermine the demographic stability of the country, because we’ll pay you for every child you bring in, but we’ll tax the whites extra for everything they’ve got.”

This is but a sampling from one episode. Peter has appeared as a friendly guest on this blatantly Neo-Nazi podcast multiple times as well as appearing as a guest on another Holocaust denying podcast. This is the tip of the iceberg.

This is not a one-time problem with Hammond. In 2016 Peter Hammond spoke at a church (a small, fundamentalist, prepper obsessed, Confederate Battle flag waving, church that has been previously accused of White Supremacy) on “Propaganda and The World Wars” in which he favorably quotes the anti-Semitic General Patton on the “unsavory” and “nasty” nature of the Jews. Furthermore, he calls the Nuremberg trials a kangaroo court, calls Jews worse than animals, and again quotes Patton saying that we destroyed the finest race, “the most decent people in Europe” to replace them with “Mongolians.” For reference, the worst starts at about 34 minutes, 40-45 minutes, and then at the 49-minute marker to the end.

Now, keep in mind that Peter Hammond is speaking on the subject of History at the Future of Christendom Conference. His lecture is entitled “Providential Christian History: A Look at Modern Textbooks”. Some defenders of Hammond have claimed that it is permissible to invite this man as a teacher because he is not teaching on ethnic issues or marriage. Yet in the talk referenced above, he focuses on the problem of textbooks; the very same topic he is slotted for at the upcoming Future of Christendom Conference. To be sure, many statist textbooks have serious problems, but the anti-Semitic and almost tin-foil-hat-wearing conspiracy theories of Hammond are interchangeably laughable and sickening. Under every problem in the world, Peter Hammond finds a Jew and a communist.

It would do us well not to divorce history from ethics, and Hammond’s vile anti-Semitism and Holocaust denying is certain evidence of how his false teachings have spread, much like cancer, to other topics such as history.

Disregard for Church Authority

If Peter Hammond’s views on Nazism, the Holocaust, marriage, and race are not enough, he is also a lawfully excommunicated man. As summarized by the excommunicating church’s elders (Church of Christian Liberty of Arlington Heights, Illinois) and hosted by Reconstructionist Radio, his excommunication is based on five primary charges.

Charge 1: Responses to the Findings and Excommunication Findings

First, when an inquiry by the board of elders of the Church of Christian Liberty (hereafter CCL) was given to Hammond regarding several accusations that arose against Peter Hammond, his response was not to directly respond to the board of elders, but he rather sent a response to others including church members.

In the response that was given, not all of the questions were answered, important details were left out, and some untruths were written.

Second, it was not until the board of elders of CCL initiated the excommunication of Peter Hammond that he claimed they had no jurisdiction or authority over him as a member or his ministry.

Charge 2: An Inappropriate Sexual Relationship Findings

Let it be known that when first inquired by the board of elders of CCL, Peter Hammond acknowledged that there was an inappropriate relationship with a specific individual, but claimed that it was not sexual, but of another nature. CCL’s first findings dismissed the allegation because of what would later found to be false testimony or unwillingness to go on record by multiple witnesses or those involved. The allegation was reopened once new evidence and testimony was given.

The board of elders of CCL then found, by witness testimony, Peter Hammond guilty of an inappropriate sexual relationship. It is documented that Peter Hammond did finally admit, after several attempts to obfuscate, cover up, and give false or intentional incomplete testimony, that the allegations were true just short of sexual intercourse. Peter Hammond agreed to certain conditions and consequences regarding his effort of repentance, but it was found that he never followed through with these terms.

Charge 3: False Portrayal of Military Service Findings

The board of elders of CCL found that Peter Hammond’s portrayal of his military service per a radio interview was a complete fabrication. When addressed, though Peter Hammond admitted that his testimony on the radio interview regarding his military service was false and that he was never a sniper, Hammond still chose to excuse his behavior.

These findings were further hardened by a reliable military source and personal friend of Hammond who, upon reading the transcript of the radio interview, claimed that Hammond’s “’exploits” were “either overblown, highly improbable, or completely fabricated.” Later this source went on record to say that Hammond was a “conscientious objector…never was in combat…never a sniper…and that he was never in the Special Forces.”

Charge 4: Peter Hammond’s Ordination was False Findings

While CCL did ordain Peter Hammond as a missionary to the people of Africa, this ordination was based on the pretense of his former ordination represented to CCL by Peter Hammond. Upon further investigation, CCL found his prior ordination was false and never occurred.

Charge 5: Refusal to Honor Oaths of Silence Findings

The board of elders of CCL found that after an agreement had been made that there would be an oath of silence regarding the content of those meetings, beyond those meetings, as the items discussed were deemed settled, that Hammond violated this agreement which is documented by various articles and correspondence that shows further efforts to intentionally compromise the truth in favor of Hammond and in several instances, complete fabrications.

In short, Peter Hammond, in numerous ways, has been found guilty of lying to build up his own esteem, lying to protect himself, a sexually inappropriate relationship, and breaking his oaths. Though Peter Hammond sends out fundraising materials painting himself as a Christian Missionary version of Indiana Jones, according to these charges and other accounts, few of his self-reported heroic adventures should be taken seriously. According to men that know him personally and have spent years with him, it appears that Peter Hammond’s fanciful stories are about as reliable as Hilary Clinton’s account of being under sniper fire. Peter Hammond is a charlatan. While supporters and sycophants stubbornly defend him based on his “many accomplishments,” the truthfulness of his stories about his own accomplishments can only be taken with a grain of salt. Even if it were true that he has done many remarkable things (something I’m unwilling to admit about a man with such a highly detailed history of false testimony), no amount of good deeds can atone for Peter’s sins. Only repentance and faith in Christ Jesus will atone for the listed charges against him as well as his (also sinful) false teachings on history and race. Sadly, repentance is the furthest thing from what Hammond has done. Instead of falling on his face and begging King Jesus and those he has sinned against for forgiveness, he assassinates the character of those who dare speak against him. All one must do to be named as a slanderer by Peter Hammond is to quote Peter Hammond’s own words. And in true Hammond style, if you condemn or critique him, you’ll be labeled as a part of a Marxist (probably Jewish too) conspiracy to discredit the poor victimized Hammond.

I have personally read through multiple documents on the excommunication of Peter Hammond. I have read the original excommunication documents from the Church of Christian Liberty as well as included papers reporting on Hammond’s impenitent response to the ecclesiastical court. These include documents addressing his fake ordinations, lies, etc.

There is also a contrary examination of the excommunication from Brian Abshire that sided with Hammond. I have asked for this document, and thus far no one has provided this document. I’d be happy to read it.

Robert Zins, a minister that previously worked with Hammond, responded to Abshire’s defense of Hammond.

[UPDATE (1/10/2019): After briefly corresponding with Mr. Zins, it appears that the only Abshire defenses of Hammond are the same defenses of Hammond that are included as appendices in Mr. Zins’ paper. As it turns out, I (and many others) have already read all that there is defending Hammond. If there are other documents, there is only rumor of them.]

A further document from Kenneth Talbot examines the excommunication and the Abshire document and fully affirms the original excommunication. Talbot goes even further and condemns Peter Hammond’s Federal Vision theology. Federal Vision being, ironically, formally rejected by the Alliance of Reformed and Theonomic Churches (ARTC. The pseudo-denomination of the Executive Director of MARS, Joel Saint. Joel Saint is also the pastor of the host church for the MARS Conference). Kenneth Talbot also alludes to very possible civil and criminal illegal activities related to funding. Dr. Talbot goes into more detail on the criminal nature of Peter Hammond in an additional document I have not read. However, it is plain to those who have read the documents that any additional documents only heap more condemnation upon Peter Hammond. Kenneth Talbot is President of Whitefield Theological Seminary and a minister. See a short selection of this document below.

Let me draw attention to the often overlooked detail that Peter Hammond’s inappropriate sexual “relationship” was with a fifteen-year-old. Let that sink in.

Lastly, Rob Brown is a former friend and mentor of Hammond and previously worked closely with him. Brown was the former chairman of Hammond’s board and a seasoned veteran of the South African Army. Rob Brown has provided a letter going into detail on the lack of integrity in Hammond and his numerous tall-tales and exaggerating/fabricating of his accomplishments. See a short selection of this document below.

I have now read these four documents multiple times. These have not been released publically in order to protect the privacy of innocent parties named in the documents, but these very long and thorough documents can be obtained by contacting the Church of Christian Liberty of Arlington Heights, Illinois.

For full disclosure, there has been a rumor of a secretive and shadowy Abshire document that “might” exonerate Peter Hammond. Not only has no one I know read or even seen this document, but the report (through the proverbial grape-vine) is also that the document may only possibly exonerate Hammond. Let’s just say I’m not holding my breath for a document shrouded in secrecy that may not even exist. Let it be known that documents exonerating Hammond are secretive, hard to get, impossible to find, and may not exist. Documents charging and condemning Hammond are accessible after a quick email to CCL. [See above note. There is most likely no other documents “exonerating” Hammond besides the ones included in the document from Mr. Zins that is easily accessible. Though some may float the idea that there is more out there, these rumors are not worth worrying about or considering if no one is willing to divulge these secretive documetnts]

What does God’s Word say about excommunication? Matthew 18:17 teaches,

“If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.”

1 Corinthians 5:11 teaches,

But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one.

Let me be very clear so that I am not misunderstood. Peter Hammond is the 1 Corinthians 5:11 man. And what does God Word tell us to do with such a man? Invite him to speak at a Christian conference where he stands in a place of authority in order to teach the Bride of Christ? No! Never! We are not to even eat with such a man. And yet men, such as the Board of The Mid-Atlantic Reformation Society, including but certainly not limited to pastors Joel Saint and Paul Michael Raymond, make excuse after excuse for this man they are not to even eat with. Shame on this. This is blatant disobedience. An utter disregard for the just authority of the church that Peter Hammond was a member of for eleven years (CCL).

Excuses and Partiality

“I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of His chosen angels, to maintain these principles without bias, doing nothing in a spirit of partiality.” – 1 Timothy‬ ‭5:21‬ ‭

Those defenders of Peter Hammond have used many excuses, yet none hold any water. While reading these excuses, I can’t help but to start humming Tammy Wynette’s classic (and a bit alarming) Stand By Your Man. It’s eerily appropriate.

For example, we should respect and admire Peter Hammond because of all of his “great accomplishments.” I have already touched on this profoundly dualistic view of ethics above. We cannot artificially divorce actions from teachings. In the case of Hammond, some of his actions are verifiable, and never repented of, deception. Thus, strongly bringing into question his other “good” deads.

Next, according to Joel Saint, Peter Hammond’s views on interracial marriage (a betrayal to God), is a doctrine we should have charity on similar to differences in Baptism. Even worse than that, Joel Saint claims that being a paedobaptist is worse than being a kinist. Only God knows if such an outlandish statement was just defensive bluster from a man on the ropes or his actual position on the matter.

When Peter Hammond’s own words were shared and examined, weak complaints of being “bullied” came from men such as Saint, Raymond, and some young upstarts in Raymond’s and Saint’s pseudo-denomination. Longtime imbittered men also chipped in against Dr. McDurmon; grinding their axes gleefully. In a strange twist, pastor Joel Saint repeatedly demanded that I publically post the private (but attainable) documents, as if

I was lying about having the reports and as if he did not have them as well. A stubborn and willful defense of a man that has been given over to Satan has pushed Joel Saint, a generally reasonable man, into petulant and peculiar behavior. Joel Saint has had access to the very same documents I have access to for several months, and when push came to shove, he demanded that I show him the same evidence publically, when he was fully aware that the documents were not public. He repeated his obstinate demand again and again in a rare display of snideness and dishonesty.

I fondly remember standing with Joel Saint and over a hundred other Christians outside of the Holocaust Memorial about two years ago. We stood together against the abortion holocaust. We held signs saying “Never Again,” and made a direct connection between the dehumanization and denial of the Jewish holocaust with the dehumanization and denial of the abortion holocaust. It saddens me greatly that Joel Saint and other leaders of the Mid-Atlantic Reformation Society would choose a teacher like Peter Hammond that denies one of those holocausts. It is startling that a man that not only denies the Jewish Holocaust but also commends none other than Adolf Hitler is also a man that is supported, funded, and defended by pastors that compare abortion to the Jewish holocaust. The disconnect is palpable.

Some of the same defenders of Hammond have also claimed that myself and others, including Dr. McDurmon, are playing judge, juror, and executioner and that we are judging Hammond far too quickly. Do not be fooled. This matter has already been judged by the local church that had Biblical jurisdiction and an independent Christian council. Not only has this matter been decided, but it was also decided 14 years ago when Peter Hammond was lawfully, and with due diligence, excommunicated by a Reformed local fellowship. Are we truly playing judge, juror, and executioner and are we really being too quick to judge when we are simply affirming and supporting a lawful and Reformed excommunication that happened 14 years ago? If there are better ways of rebuking Peter Hammond and warning others about him, I’d like to see how others have done so over the last 14 years of Peter Hammond being invited to Christian conferences and raking in fundraising money from naive and gullible Christians. It is my suspicion that although there is a lot of talk about being slow to speak and due diligence, that talk will last indefinitely . If the evidence supported Hammond, they’d be quick to step up to the plate for the man and I’m sure the pro-Hammond evidence (hypothetical of course) would be verified quickly with all due diligence. In other words, to many men, due diligence is code for endlessly waiting for documents that support their already agreed upon conclusion. How many independent Christian councils need to weigh in on this 14-year-old excommunication? Are we going to be stuck in this rut of “due diligence” until the stars align, pigs fly, and Peter Hammond is cleared of all charges?

Others have had the audacity to claim that we should have unity with the excommunicated kinist because we have also had unity with Dr. McDurmon. The contention is that Dr. McDurmon is apparently an “antinomian” because of his ideas on the Cherem Principle. The major complaint against the Cherem Principle, for some, is that it stops short of the death penalty in regards to certain sexual crimes such as open homosexuality and adultery. Beside the bombastic claim of antinomianism, which would then need to be applied to most Christian teachers, it’s interesting that these defenders of Hammond would bring up the Cherem Principle in regards to Peter Hammond. After all, Hammond, a man with charges of an adulterous sexual relationship with a fifteen-year-old against him, would perhaps have his life spared under the Cherem principle, while without McDurmon’s “antinomian” principle, his life very well may be forfeit. As someone who has not made up his mind on the Cherem Principle, my recommendation is to thirst for the blood of homosexuals less and care a bit more about fifteen-year-old girls and interracially married couples. Some amateurish and asinine arguments have been made against the Cherem Principle, but if you’d like a level-headed and honest critique of the view, I recommend Martin Selbrede’s response.

Boycotting vs. Christian Discipline

Some have asked why I am boycotting this conference. Martin Selbrede, for example, rightly points out the folly in what we would traditionally call boycotting. Martin, a man I like and respect, makes a good case for not boycotting even pagans. Typically people boycott to put economic or social pressure on others to coerce some kind of change. Although I will not be going to the MARS Future of Christendom Conference, recommending it, endorsing it, or supporting it, I am not boycotting the conference in the way Selbrede suggests. I am not refusing to attend in order to place pressure on MARS; I am refusing to attend for these reasons.

I refuse to willfully sit under the teaching of a wolf who has been lawfully given over to Satan by a legitimate ecclesiastical court.

I refuse to give any credibility to the position of authority that is implicitly handed over to this false teacher by the MARS board.

I refuse to have any sort of fellowship with a man we are commanded to not even eat with.

I have serious questions about the discernment of any group of men (the MARS board) that would prop up such a man as Hammond, even after all of these details about his character have been made plain to them.

I am separating myself out not to economically coerce, but rather because it is my Christain duty to treat an excommunicated reprobate as an excommunicated reprobate. If Hammond is a true brother, he has not shown any fruit of repentance. I pray for his repentance and confession, forgiveness, and reconciliation would truly make our Lord’s name great. But until that happens, to ignore his ethnic-based hatred, injustice denying, false teachings, decades-long deceptions, adultery with an underage girl, fraud and possibly criminal financial swindling, is not only negligence and a failure to call evil evil and good good, it is hatred to Peter Hammond. The man needs the Gospel, not a lectern at a Christian conference. Not another opportunity to raise funds for his organization. Passive, limp-wristed, soft, and (now) over 14-year-old slow processes of supposedly trying to talk to him privately does not cut it. Giving him the stage is beyond negligence. It is complicitness. Elders and leaders in the Church have a duty to protect the flock and the MARS Board is opening their people and their coffers to a wolf. I can play no part in that. I do not call that boycotting. I call that having nothing to do with evil.

Why Care About Such a Little Conference?

I care about this little conference for a few reasons. I know some of these men. Not well, but I have spoken with them. I was also eagerly awaiting this conference before I found out who was speaking. I was very much disappointed that I could not attend last year, and I was planning on attending this year.

I also care because there are real problems in the Reconstructionist community. It is not a secret that many within the broader movement also have ties with neo or paleo-Confederatism. Many expressed absolute horror at Dr. Joel McDurmon’s critique of their folk heroes, Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackosn, and RL Dabney. Some have even casually commented that some Reconstructionist conferences in the seventies and eighties could have been mistaken for a Civil War reenactment gathering but with only the boys in grey with the boys in blue awkwardly missing. I don’t know if that comment was just a joke or a reality, but the tone and underlying feelings regarding “Southern Heritage” was no joke.

The racism-lite of some sectors of Christian Reconstructionism is by no means an integral part of Christian Reconstructionism, nor is it spread to every corner. Nevertheless, it was not surprising to hear that the most loyal defenders of Peter Hammond were the same men that viciously criticized Dr. McDurmon’s most recent book, The Problem of Slavery in Christian America.

I care about this small regional conference because it is a stain upon both the Christian Reconstructionist community as well as the name of Christ. Christian Reconstructionists have a lot to say about justice, law, and impartiality, but if we pick and choose which injustices to oppose while embracing others, the rest of the Church will take note, and the world will take note too. How can we dare hold anti-abortion signs comparing various holocausts and then let a man who denies the Jewish holocaust teach the sheep? How can we dare lecture the world on the sin of homosexuality while shrugging at calling interracial marriage a betrayal of God? How can we dare pick and choose which categories of injustice we will rebuke while shrugging at injustice in another area of life? The world is watching, and the Church is watching. I care because the Christian Reconstructionist community is small but growing, and the days where we can get away with having a little bit of paganism on the side should be long gone. We are and will continue to be imperfect, but frankly, refusing to endorse and defend this kind of blatant racism and this level of moral depravity is a low bar.

I am thankful that God is sanctifying his people. I am thankful that, while other sins and heresies persist, kinism is being purged from the American Church. I am grieved that the Christian Reconstructionist community has been a safe space for racists and kinists. I am thankful, though it is painful and hard, that it is no longer a safe space. If you have hatred in your heart for minorities or if you teach false doctrines that divide upon racial lines in an intrinsically prejudiced manner, you will be called out. I am thankful that Peter Hammond is being exposed as the wolf that he is is. I am thankful that the dark underbellies of certain “Christian” subcultures are being exposed and made vulnerable. Lastly, I’m thankful that the future of Christendom is bright and secure no matter the sins and delusions of men who use and abuse the name of Christ. God be praised.

“Nothing can be more cruel than the leniency which abandons others to their sin. Nothing can be more compassionate than the severe reprimand which calls another Christian in one’s community back from the path of sin. . . We have been silent witnesses of evil deeds; we have been drenched by many storms; we have learnt the arts of equivocation and pretence; experience has made us suspicious of others and kept us from being truthful and open; intolerable conflicts have worn us down and even made us cynical. Are we still of any use? What we shall need is not geniuses, or cynics, or misanthropes, or clever tacticians, but plain, honest, and straightforward men. Will our inward power of resistance be strong enough, and our honesty with ourselves remorseless enough, for us to find our way back to simplicity and straightforwardness?”
-Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Hanged by Nazis on April 9th 1945.

Update:

Although this does not come as a surprise, it is worth mentioning that Peter Hammond has appeared as a guest on a Christian Identity podcast over twenty times over the last year. Christian Identity is an pseudo-Christian ideology that teaches that only those of White European descent (specifically Northern European descent such as Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, and Germanic descent) are truly of Ancient Israelite descent and that today’s Jews are the cursed offspring of Cain. It should go without saying that this is a vile and racist ideology.

Although I have not been able to skim these several podcast episodes yet, it should be noted that as more time goes by it’s discovered that Peter Hammond has more and more dealings and close relationships with racists, White Supremacists, and outright pagans. The episodes can be found here.